![It's true. They don't want us to know what the aliens think [960x721 - 61KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/CgPOVr.jpg){kind=link}
Modern turbogenerators are far from primitive.
The most effective way to generate electricity is by spinning a generator. Generators can be built as small or as large as required, provide VAR sinks for grid voltage stability, and are a physical spinning mass for grid frequency stability.
The most effective way to spin that generator is with a turbine. Turbines too can be built as small or as large as required. Modern electro-analog-hydraulic or electro-digital-hydraulic control systems can precisely control turbine speed, allowing dependable grid frequency control. Turbines can be build to a wide variety of working fluids, whether steam, water, or 'gas' (air+combustion products).
Water is cheap. It is abundant. Its thermodynamic properties are a known quantity. It boils and condenses at useful temperatures and pressures here on Earth. While corrosive at higher temperatures, it is not obscenely so. Simple stainless steels are all that is required. As a useful working fluid, you can heat it using any method you desire. Fission, coal, gas, sunlight, wood - whatever.
As far as the nuclear side of things, most of the energy of fission is released as kinetic energy of the fission fragments - that is, heat. So using a more 'exotic' energy capture mechanism such as the photoelectric effect would be less efficient than steam power.
On top of all that, most of the safety issues that are complained about have been solved. You can literally blow up a pebble bed reactor and the result would require a minor clean-up. Meltdowns aren't possible.
Modern turbogenerators are far from primitive.
The most effective way to generate electricity is by spinning a generator. Generators can be built as small or as large as required, provide VAR sinks for grid voltage stability, and are a physical spinning mass for grid frequency stability.
I don't disagree with these statements one bit. Their uses in stability and control of reactive/apparent power and spinning generation for frequency maintenance are both vastly important and useful. The problem I have is in the conversion of fission energy to electricity through the water intermediate. Water is not terribly efficient with heat transfer, but it's the best we have for simplicity, cost and maintenance.
Since there is no direct atomic or nuclear to electricity conversion that we know of, the use of steam holds us back. Perhaps this is the real test for the aliens. If we cannot master the physics to harness the fission/fusion energy directly, then we are not ready to join their club. Water is the best we have, but I suspect we will discover more about other methods in the future.
Water is an effective heat transfer agent. convective heat transfer is a function of fluid flow rate, fluid density, and fluid heat conductance. Water i fairly high with all of these (though of course less than, say, liquid metals). Where water really shines is the boiling heat transfer coefficient, which is about an order of magnitude higher than convective alone.
Since there is no direct atomic or nuclear to electricity conversion that we know of, the use of steam holds us back.
There is, it's called the photoelectric effect. As noted above. But very little of fission's energy is released as gammas so it'll never be worth it.
(post is archived)